Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
October 7, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
v.
ED SHAFER, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Agriculture; CHARLES
HAGGERTY; JOHN VAN METER; JOHN
DOE, individuals; JOHN DOE, as
employee agents of the United States of
America acting through the Farm Services
Administration,
Defendants - Appellees.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
(unpublished) (setting forth standard of review). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must
contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled
to relief. The purpose of a modern complaint is to give opposing parties fair notice of
the basis of the claim against them so that they may respond to the complaint, and to
apprise the court of sufficient allegations to allow it to conclude, if the allegations are
true, that the claimant has a legal right to relief. Monument Builders of Greater Kansas
City, Inc., v. Am. Cemetery Assn of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989)
(quotations omitted). Accordingly, a district court may dismiss a pro se complaint when,
even liberally construed, it is incomprehensible. See Carpenter v. Williams, 86 F.3d
1015, 1016 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Moser, 118 Fed. Appx. at 38081 (affirming
dismissal under Rule 8(a) where the complaint was vague and incomprehensible to the
point that the defendants could not discern the claims or prepare a defense).
The district court acted well within its discretion in this case. The complaint
recites an array of statutory and common-law causes of action with little, if any,
connection to the factual allegations. Indeed, the factual allegations themselves are
sufficiently confusing and disjointed so as to render the legal claims incomprehensible.
The defendants maintain that as a result they are unable to meaningfully assess and assert
applicable defenses. We agree. Because even a liberal reading of the plaintiffs
complaint does not bring it within the ambit of Rule 8(a)(2), the district court properly
dismissed the action.
In their brief on appeal, the plaintiffs raise a host of issues that are generally
-3-
related to the plaintiffs extensive litigation against these defendants but do not appear to
arise from the district courts dismissal under Rule 8(a)(2) of the plaintiffs most recent
complaint. Thus, we do not address them in this appeal. To the extent that the plaintiffs
claims are properly before this Court, such as their assertion that the district court should
have granted their April 3, 2008 Motion To Compel the Defendant Show CauseThat
It Has Not Schemed To Inject Fraud into This Courts Proceedings Held To Dispose of
Hazardous Environmental Waste 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(4)(B), we agree with the district
court that this motion and all other motions became moot upon the dismissal of the
plaintiffs complaint. Finally, although the plaintiffs assert at the beginning of their brief
that the district court judge should recuse himself, they set forth no facts or legal
argument to support this claim.
II. CONCLUSION
The district courts dismissal of this action is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
-4-